Dear Len

> One more round from me, then I really must get on.
> 
Me too.

> First, substantive stuff:
> 
> 1) in my view the competence approach is deeply flawed; this view is 
> based on my professional experience, and on conceptual, theoretical 
> and empirical grounds;
> 2) to *start* with a (any) competence framework when attempting to 
> analyse how work-related problems may be resolved through training/ 
> educationa/ staff development intervetions, is to court 
> ineffectiveness (a.ka.a 'failure' - but performance accounts can be 
> massaged, of course)
> 3) I am willing to discuss the issues about competence, in an 
> appropriate spirit of intellectual enquiry and practical progress.
> 
Fine.  Fair enough.  Why couldn't you have said that in the first place
instead of rabbiting on about snake-oil sellers and photo-fit substitutes?

I echo Len's comment that you may wish to switch off here!

***************************************

> I'm not sure where this puts members of the list (which is, after all, on 
> the Joint *Academic* Network) whose own theoretical and empirical 
> research work, and whose professional experience and practice, leads them 
> to question the dominant approach. Are we to remain quiet because to 
> speak out may be taken as a critique of their views? Isn't that a form of 
> censorship? Do we not have some collegial responsibility to speak out 
> against what we see as problematic, and to propose better ways forward? 
> 
What appears at the top of this message is a calm and lucid summary of the
content of your earlier contribution.  What some people besides myself
have found offensive is a *style* of communication which is illustrated by
the paragraph above.  It's about taking something to a logical and
rhetorical extreme.  Exploring what is a desirable level of politeness in
a difficult medium is not proposing censorship.

> As far as I recall, I did not just critique; I *did* propose the way 
> forward. 

This is what got me going in the first place!  Your first contribution
didn't offer any alternative proposals for the way forward, and I said
something in my original message about appreciating your analysis but not
finding anything in it which offered pragmatic suggestions.  You *did*
offer that in a later message, and I thanked you for doing so.

> I don't see how the manner of my contributions can be construed as 
> offensive; I feel offended that they should be so construed.
> 
I'm not speaking for others, but what I found discourteous was:
 
a) 	the style of communication, as I've indicated above, including
some rather highly coloured language

b)	you jumped to conclusions about what I had done, and criticised me on
that basis, rather than finding out.  I think this sets a bad example of
an 'academic' approach.

> > Yes, clearly.  I don't call what I do 'teaching'for a start.  
> 
> > I was responding to your comment on 26th Jan, copied in below, in 
> which you used the term 'teach':
> 
> "It is precisely *because* the language helps to construct the 
> social reality that you might want to teach them the vocabulary for 
> activities and functions that they would probably rather ignore in 
> the hope they'll go away."
> 
A palpable hit!  This is probably because I spent some time teaching
English as a foreign language, which is when I learned about language
constructing social reality ....

> Again, I'm not sure how I am supposed to take this. Do I read the 
> whole of your interaction with me as tongue-in-cheek?
> 
.... and also picked up a useful concept 'both and'.  Yes, I'm smiling,
and yes, this is serious.  

> *You invited* me to offer practical suggestions and advice (message 
> of 26th: 
> But now I'm being criticised for doing so! isn't it me that might be 
> expected to have feelings of paranoia? 
>  
Get a grip, man.  I was inviting practical suggestions *to the list*, and
your response was to offer to come and look at what *I* was 'trying to
do'.  As a good snake-oil salesperson my calmly assertive response to this
should be:  when you made this offer, I felt patronised, and I would
prefer it if in future you would not leap to conclusions as to what would
be helpful to me.  As a ferocious old bat my response is:  you're not
paranoid, Len, I really *am* going to come after you with a smack in the
mouth!!!!!!

Don't worry, I'm 250 miles away.....

Cheers

Lesley








%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%